Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Darth vader hot air balloon.jpg

< Commons:Deletion requests
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Darth_vader_hot_air_balloon.jpg

edit

Derivative work from the copyrighted character. Darth Vader is a US character, so Mexican freedom of panorama is hardly relevant. Trycatch (talk) 08:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is just a balloon it doesn't infringe any copyright law.

 Keep This is a legal, registered airship with the form of Darth Vader. The picture was taken in the Leon Guanajuato International Hot Air Balloon Festival [[1]]. While I cannot be certain, I am pretty sure that the builders of such an airship did not incurr in copyvios. This is one of the largest hot air balloon festivals in the world. This balloon is meant to be on display in public airspace. The image was taken in a public place, therefore, freedom of panorama does apply. The preponderance of the evidence, like the presence of this airship in public events around the world, suggest that it was manufactured with the proper permits and clearance and is in fact meant to be seen, and since its presence is in public airspace, freedom of panorama is definitely relevant. I ask the nominator for deletion to present legal evidence of copyright violation of his conjectures. Derivative work? Hardly, think of this picture as that of any airplane. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • You should know that it works the other way: assertion of copyright needs no evidence, and if there's no strong evidence of free use - precautionary principle says "delete". I don't have a firm opinion on this case, however, - there seems to be an insane "consensus" that copyrighted characters are acceptable if photographed in Mexico (but not anywhere else). So your Spongbob and Co. seem to be safe (at least "for now"). Mexican loophole. NVO (talk) 23:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Under this logic then just about any sign, shape or copyrighted object that is in public view is subject for deletion. This is a registeres airship that complies with aeronautical laws that happens to have the shape of a character. Fender guitars are shape copyrighted, coca cola bottles are too, and so a thousands of objects. The baloon is not photographed by itself, but within a balloon context. I say that the very nature of the ballon, the fact that it is a registered airship, that it complies with international laws are stronger evidence that it is meant to be seen in public spaces, and thus subject to be photographed, than a weak suspicion of copyright infringement. The same festival features coca cola bottles as balloon, beer cans, etc., etc. If anything, this is a form of advertising in public places. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • "any ... copyrighted object that is in public view is subject for deletion" - correct in general. There are certain exemptions: FOP, de minimis, Godwin's opinion, and their interpretation by closing sysops. NVO (talk) 05:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Compliance by third parties (builders/owners/operators of the balloon) is irrelevant here. What is relevant is commons' own house rules, and their interpretation by the closing admin. NVO (talk) 05:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • You are correct, more than anything, above reason, the law, convention, is the opinion of one closing admin, who we know nothing about his/her knowledge in the matter. Truly in the hands of a dark hole! Which reminds me of Juvenal´s quote: "and who is looking over the guards?". --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "TK-9999 spoke of the project with Steve Sansweet (LucasFilm)...and LFL gave us the green light for a Darth Vador's helmet shaped balloon a few weeks later." [2] perhaps an OTRS is in order? or migrate to english wikipedia, "non free 3D artwork". Slowking4 (talk) 16:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete - protected by copyright law. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.

Reasons:

  1. Darth Vader is a copyrighted character.
  2. The creator of the balloon may or may not have purchased a license from Lucasfilm, so the balloon itself may or may not be a copyvio. If it is a copyvio, then this derivative work is also a copyvio.
  3. If the creator of the balloon did purchase a license from Lucasfilm, then the balloon is not itself a copyvio. However, such a license almost certainly did not allow the balloon creator to sublicense the Darth Vader character for other purposes such as this image -- Vader is a cash cow, it is unimaginable that Lucasfilm would license it freely.
  4. In either case, this image infringes on the Darth Vader copyright unless we get permission from Lucasfilm. That seems unlikely, but not, perhaps, impossible.

Other points above:

  • The fact that it is a licensed aircraft is irrelevant -- aviation authorities care about airworthiness, not copyright.
  • FOP is irrelevant. It is not permanent anywhere it goes and only a very few countries allow FOP for temporary displays. Also, if the balloon itself is unlicensed, then even FOP could not prevent any image from being a copyvio.
  • Most of the examples given above -- guitars, etc. are not in fact copyrighted. It is true that there are many recent creations that cannot be the subject of images here.
  • As for:
"and who is looking over the guards?"
we have well established procedures, including Commons:Undeletion requests to keep watch over me and my colleagues.

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Darth_vader_hot_air_balloon.jpg&oldid=493205302"